| Bookmarkers beware: Bookmarks to pages other than the home page may not work after we change our server in April |
Editor's Choice | This Week in BMJ | Press releases
BMJ No 7130 Volume 316
Education and debate Saturday 14 February 1998
Continuing medical education
Recertification and the maintenance of competence
Philip G Bashook, John ParboosinghThis is the fourth in a series of seven articles looking at international trends and forces in doctors' continuing professional development
Completion of postgraduate specialist training is a
landmark event for most doctors. The award of a certificate is
acknowledgment that a doctor has undergone a recognised training
programme and been assessed as competent to practise as a specialist in
his or her field. Specialists begin practice with a common knowledge
base and similar clinical skills but go on to develop different areas
of expertise in response to patients' needs. In time, the knowledge
and skills of doctors within a specialty will vary appreciably. Recertification in the United StatesRecognition of the disparity in doctors' skills and the need to maintain common core standards have been a key factor behind the "recertification" movement in the United States.(1) The movement became established in 1969 when the American Board of Family Practice began issuing time limited certificates. Although recertification is nominally a voluntary process, doctors must get recertified every seven years if they want to retain the status of being "board certified."(2) |  |
The United States is currently the only country in which most trained specialists are expected to obtain recertification certificates at set intervals throughout their professional lives. Twenty two of the 24 member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties issue certificates, with expiry dates varying between seven and ten years. The incentive to get recertified is strong, for a valid board certificate has become essential for doctors in many communitites in order to admit patients to hospital and claim the top reimbursement fees and salaries of a specialist. Reports that doctors who do not have specialty certification are falsifying certificates or claiming specialty certification on their curriculum vitae are increasing.
| Summary points |
| Recertification should assess real performance in practice and competence to continue to learn |
| Recertification programmes in the United States use examinations and performance assessments as "snapshots" of competence taken every 7-10 years |
| In other countries most programmes evaluate documented participation in continuing education as evidence of continuing competence as a specialist |
| The proposed continuous recertification programme uses computer technology to document self directed learning from practice and to monitor performance |
| Poor performers could be recognised early, given focused assistance and additional periodic examinations at testing centres, and if necessary their certificates could be rescinded |
What does recertification entail?
The recertification procedures set up by the member boards of the
American Board of Medical Specialties aim to encourage doctors to
continue learning and keep up to date; give recognition to doctors who
continue to meet the specialty board's standards; and remove
certification status from doctors holding time limited certificates who
fail to apply for recertification.
Most of the boards use a snapshot assessment of knowledge, skills, and performance. Written examinations, usually in the form of multiple choice questions, are used by all boards, and 11 require set credit hours of continuing medical education (CME), typically 50 hours a year in the three years before recertification. Performance is measured indirectly by report of licensure status, letters of recommendation from chiefs of healthcare organisations and hospitals, attendance at CME programmes, and independent assessment by peers and other health professionals. Some boards allow specialists to select their own form of assessment.
Recertification is not cheap. The member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties charge doctors between $533 and $1,255 to sit the written examinations and up to $10,500 for a two day on-site visit. On-site review of practice has recently been discontinued,(2) and it is difficult and expensive to introduce more rigorous forms of assessment of clinical skills. Site visits, examinations using standardised patients, and case recall interviews(17) have been found to be too expensive or impossible to implement for large numbers of board certified doctors. Furthermore, obtaining hard evidence of the validity and reliability of such methods of assessment would entail extensive and expensive research - hence the reliance on written examinations.(12)
Driven to extremes by competition
Medical care in the United States is a competitive marketplace.
Doctors in fee for service practice have to compete with large health
corporations that own hospitals and doctors' practices. These
corporations use the number of affiliated "board certified
specialists" as an indicator of the "quality" of service they
provide. Certification has also been used by Consumer
Reports,a respected consumer organisation engaged in quality
assessment, as a criterion in ranking "best hospitals" and "best
healthcare plans." Patients have routinely taken to consulting
directories such as the Official ABMS Directory of Board
Certified Specialistsor calling a freephone number to
determine a doctor's certification credentials.
This pressure on doctors to produce documented if purely nominal evidence that they are competent and up to date has had undesirable side effects. One has been the growth of self designated "certifying boards" set up by specialty societies and by entrepreneurs. Most of these, of which there are around 150, have adopted names which mimic the names of the member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties. Doctors who obtain certification certificates from these organisations are required to pass an examination, take out membership, and pay annual fees to retain their "board" status. The standards for these qualifications vary widely, and the many different forms of "board" certification cause concern and confusion for both the profession and the public. A second development has been the launch of a new certification programme, the American Medical Accreditation Program, by the American Medical Association.(5) This programme allows non-certified doctors to obtain what the association terms "accreditation" as a specialist even if they have not completed recognised training programmes and obtained a certificate of satisfactory completion of specialist training. This move, which is likely to cause further confusion among the public, will need to be followed closely.
A third development has been the proliferation of CME programmes aimed at (and advertised as) teaching doctors how to pass board recertification exams. The essential question of whether these programmes provide education useful for practice is deemed to be of secondary importance.
Recertification and CME in other English speaking countries
Outside the United States, most postgraduate colleges have elected not to incorporate formal examinations into their recertification procedures. In many, the initial certification process amounts to more than a single exit examination, doctors being required to undergo frequent in-training evaluations over many years. The colleges then offer programmes for maintenance of competence, based largely on participation in formal educational activities. Most postgraduate recertification or CME programmes simply require a set number of hours of attendance, usually 50 a year, at recognised CME courses. More recently, weighted credit systems have been introduced in Canada; these recognise that some forms of CME are more effective than others at changing practice. Thus the MOCOMP system (see box) awards credits on the basis of the educational quality of the programme: traditional didactic sessions are rated at 1 credit per hour while interactive workshops based on audits of practice with opportunities to interact with faculty members receive 2 credits per hour.
|
The maintainence of competence program (MOCOMP)
|
In Australia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has led the way in incorporating recertification criteria that relate more closely to doctors' performance than attendance at traditional CME courses. Participation in quality improvement initiatives such as audits of practice, as well as attendance of traditional CME courses, is required. The college also has a unique physician assessment programme in which peers, coworkers, and patients rate doctors on their clinical management and their "holistic" and personal skills with patients.(13) A recent pilot study in Canada showed that this method can provide reliable and meaningful assessments of doctors, and peer assessment may become a mandatory requirement for licensure in the province of Alberta.
Time limited certification is legally required of specialists in Australia and New Zealand, and in Canada it is required for membership of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.(14) In the United Kingdom the royal colleges and specialist associations are piloting credit systems that are similar to the Australian model except that participation is voluntary, not mandatory. In Canada, certification as a specialist by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons is life long. Although there are no plans for introducing recertification procedures, the college is experimenting with self directed learning programmes.
Continuous recertification: the way forward?
Snapshot assessments every 7-10 years are a crude form of assessment of competence. A more effective way to maintain professional knowledge and performance is to introduce a programme of continuous recertification. We propose a programme based on a combination of audit of practice data and documented evidence of continuous learning in practice.
Practice performance data
Medical records provide data on patient encounters, prescriptions,
other treatment modalities and follow up visits. Four member boards of
the American Board of Medical Specialties already use such data,
requiring doctors to submit computerised summary reports on patients:
family practice,(15,16) plastic surgery,(17)
obstetrics and gynaecology,(18) and orthopaedic
surgery.(19) Managed care corporations routinely use
computer technology to monitor doctors' performance, patient outcomes,
and patients' views of doctors' attitudes. A continuous
recertification programme could build on this technology.
In addition to assessments of their knowledge, decision making skills, and technical expertise, doctors should be assessed on their abilities to communicate with both their patients and their peers, to share the process of decision making, to work as members of a team, and to break bad news with empathy. Modern information systems will facilitate this form of multiple assessment, which could be made annually or even more frequently as part of a cycle of continuous recertification.
Continuous learning in practice
The foundations of quality patient care begin during training, but
with rapid developments in medical knowledge doctors have to learn
continuously in practice if they are to maintain high quality
care.(1) More than ever, doctors need support systems to
help them use feedback on their performance to plan and implement
effective and individual continuing education programmes. Systems, such
as the computerised maintenance of competence program (MOCOMP) in
Canada are being set up to help them meet these
needs.(25)
The Royal Australasian College of Pathologists has piloted a similar software program to help its members to use learning portfolios as part of their maintenance of certification. Similar systems are also being explored in the United Kingdom.
Computer technology
Periodic examinations may be secondary to continuous evaluation of practice performance and keeping learning portfolios, but they undeniably have a place in continued medical education. Computer based examinations in particular are available at testing centres worldwide through a combination of entrepreneurial companies and not for profit testing organisations.(23) The shift from paper tests to computer based tests has accelerated in recent years. For example, the recertification examinations of the American Board of Pediatrics and the American Board of Pathology are distributed on computer diskettes for use at home, and in 1997 the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery and the American Board of Anesthesiology ran their recertification programme only in computer testing centres. The American Board of Pathology has been operating such a centre for over two years and will double the centre's capacity by June.(24)
Advanced multimedia computer technology, such as virtual reality environments, is being developed to help train doctors to perform invasive surgical and endoscopic procedures. This technology may also be used to evaluate how well the doctors carry out these procedures and other patient-doctor interactions. These medical "flight simulators" are already available commercially.(26) Within a decade they are likely to be used widely by medical schools and hospitals, both as learning tools and to evaluate doctors' performance, and also to provide remedial training where there is evidence of deficiencies in practice. Certifying boards and colleges could use these centres as a second step for more in depth assessments of clinical skill.
Conclusion
In the future, recertification programmes could require
specialists to provide certifying boards with computerised summary
reports of their practice experience and learning portfolios every 3-5
years. Clicking a mouse button or touching the keyboard would generate
the recertification report. Much of the scheduling could be automated,
and specialists could have automatic reminders about what information
is needed; where in their computer reports it is located; and how,
when, and where to send it. Doctors who fail to meet set standards, or
those who have not practised for some time, would have to undergo more
in-depth educational assessment so that an educational
"p Continuing learning must be seen as a routine part of daily
practice. Objective evidence of the quality of care can be obtained by
integrating audit and self assessment programmes into routine clinical
practice. Feedback on the results should be given on a regular basis
and regarded not as a threat but as an opportunity to learn. Regular
appraisal of practice, using multiple assessments, will also allow
early recognition of doctors who are performing badly and need focused
help or remedial education, or their licence removed.
The biggest obstacle to implementing continuous recertification
is professional conservativism about learning methods and computer
technology. These attitudes must change, for computer literacy will
soon be essential for medical practice. At the same time it is
increasingly being accepted that all medical students need to be taught
about the concepts of adult learning so that as doctors they go on to
become lifelong learners.(28)
It may take time to debate the merits of continuous
recertification, but in our view this strategy is consistent with the
evidence on how adults learn and keep up to date,(1)
feasible and affordable with current technology, and crucial to the
provision of high quality medical care.
The views expressed here are the authors' and do not represent
either the American Board of Medical Specialties and its member boards
or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
American Board of Medical Specialties, Royal College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Canada,
Correspondence to: Dr Bashook
email: pgb@abms.org
Correspondence to: Hans Asbjorn Holm and Tessa Richards
Series editors: Hans Asbjörn Holm and Tessa Richards
References
1 Fox R D, Mazmanian P E, Putman R W, eds. Changing and
learning in the lives of physicians. New York: Praeger, 1989.
2 American Board of Medical Specialties. 1996 annual
report and reference handbook. Evanston, IL: ABMS, 1996.
3 American Board of Medical Specialties. The official
ABMS directory of board certified medical specialists. New
Providence, NJ: Marquis Who's Who, 1997.
4 Seifer S D, Troupin B, Rubenfeld G D. Changes in the marketplace
demand for physicians: a study of medical journal recruitment
advertisements. JAMA 1996;276:695-9.
5 American Medical Association. American Medical
Accreditation Program (AMAP), standards and criteria. Chicago:
AMA, 1997.
6 Kassirer J P. The new surrogate for board certification.
N Engl J Med 1997;337:43-4.
7 Ramsey P G, Carline J D, Blank L L, Wenrich M D. Feasibility of
hospital-based use of peer ratings to evaluate the performance of
practising physicians. Acad Med 1996; 71:364-70.
8 Haladyna T M. Measuring higher order thinking. In:
Developing and validating multiple-choice test items.
Hillsdale, NJ: L Erlbaum Associates, 1994:87-107.
9 Page G G. Assessing reasoning and judgment. In: Mancall E L,
Bashook P G, eds. Assessing clinical reasoning: the oral
examination and alternative methods. Evanston, IL: American
Board of Medical Specialties. 1995:9-27.
10 McGaghie W C. Evaluating competence for professional practice.
In: Curry L, Wergin J F, eds. Educating professionals.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993:229-61.
11 Bashook P G. Planning a recertification program. In: Mancall EL,
Bashook PG, eds. Recertification: new evaluation methods and
strategies. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1994:15-27.
12 Smith F G. Computer-based examinations. In: Mancall EL, Bashook
PG, eds. Recertification: new evaluation methods and
strategies. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1994:33-42.
13 Newble D, Wakeford R. Primary certification in the UK and
Australasia. In: Newble D, Jolly B, Wakeford R, eds. The
certification and recertification of doctors: issues in the assessment
of clinical competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991:13-8.
14 Violato C, Marini A, Toews J, Lockyer J, Fidler H. Feasibility
and psychometric properties of using peers, consulting physicians,
co-workers, and patients to assess physicians. Acad Med
1997;72:S82-4.
15 College of Family Physicians of Canada. MAINPROTM,
Maintenance of Proficiency/Maintain de la Compétence Professionnelle.
Toronto: CFPC, 1995.
16 Leigh T M. Computerized office record review - update. In: Lloyd
JS, Langsley DG, eds. Recertification for medical
specialists. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1987:103-20.
17 Young P R. Office record review. In: Mancall EL, Bashook PG,
eds. Recertification: new evaluation methods and
strategies. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1994:63-72.
18 Neale H W, Puckett C L. Clinical Case Review. In: Mancall EL,
Bashook PG, eds. Recertification: new evaluation methods and
strategies. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1994:57-62.
19 Merrill J A. Personal practice audit. In: Lloyd J S, Langsley D G,
eds. Recerti- fication: for medical specialists. Evanston,
IL: American Board of Medical Specialties. 1987:97-102.
20 Kettelkamp D B. Practice review. In: Mancall EL, Bashook PG,
eds. Recertification: new evaluation methods and
strategies. Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical
Specialties. 1994:53-5.
21 Davis D A, Fox R D. The physician as learner: from
research to practice. Chicago: American Medical Association,
1995.
22 Campbell, C M, Parboosingh J T,Gondocz S T, Babitskaya G, Lindsey
E, de Guzman R C, et al. Study of physicians' use of a software
program to c
23 Parboosingh J. Learning portfolios: potential to assist health
professionals with self-directed learning. J Cont Educ Health
Professions 1996;16:75-81.
24 Rosen G A. Single sites, multi-sites and multi-day availability.
In: Mancall E L, Bashook P G, Dockery J L, eds. Computer-based
examinations for board certification. Evanston, IL: American
Board of Medical Specialties. 1996:41-5.
25 Hartmann W H. Certifying boards and computer-based examinations.
In: Mancall E L, Bashook P G, Dockery J L, eds. Computer-based
examinations for board certification. Evanston, IL: American
Board of Medical Specialties. 1996:91-7.
26 Satava R M, Jones S B. Virtual reality environments in medicine.
In: Mancall E L, Bashook P G, Dockery J L, eds. Computer-based
examinations for board certification. Evanston, IL: American
Board of Medical Specialties. 1996:121-31.
27 Taggart W R. Certifying pilots: implications for medicine and
for the future. In: Mancall E L, Bashook P G, eds. Assessing
clinical reasoning: the oral examination and alternative methods.
Evanston, IL: American Board of Medical Specialties.
1995:175-80.
28 Karle H, Nystrup J, Walton H J. Medical specialization in
Europe: the way forward. Promotion of educational quality. Med
Educ 1993;27:299-303.
29 Manning P R, DeBakey L. Preserving the passion.
New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
Evanston,
IL
60201-5913,
USA
Philip G Bashook,
director of
evaluation and education
Ottawa,
Ontario,
Canada K1S 5N8
John
Parboosingh,
associate director, office of fellowship affairs
Home | Current issue | Past issues | Classified ads | Career Focus | Feedback
Collections | About this site | About the BMJ | BMA | Medline